Posted
by
Soulskillon Wednesday March 20, 2013 @08:14AM
from the one-of-the-not-OK-ways-to-murder-people dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Mike Hoffman reports that Syria's Assad regime has accused the rebels of launching a chemical weapons attack in Aleppo that killed 25 people — an accusation the rebel fighters have strongly rebuked. A Reuters photographer said victims he had visited in Aleppo hospitals were suffering breathing problems and that people had said they could smell chlorine after the attack. The Russian foreign ministry says it has enough information to confirm the rebels launched a chemical attack while U.S. government leaders say they have not found any evidence of a chemical attack. White House spokesman Jay Carney says the accusations made by Assad could be an attempt to cover up his own potential attacks. 'We've seen reports from the Assad regime alleging that the opposition has been responsible for use. Let me just say that we have no reason to believe these allegations represent anything more than the regime's continued attempts to discredit the legitimate opposition and distract from its own atrocities committed against the Syrian people,' said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. 'We don't have any evidence to substantiate the regime's charge that the opposition even has CW (chemical weapons) capability.' President Obama has said the 'red line' to which the U.S. would send forces to Syria would be the use of chemical weapons. However, it was assumed the Assad regime would be the ones using their chemical weapons stockpile, not the rebels."

Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels? I'm sure Syrian government officials would like nothing more at this point than to have the US and UN coalition allies storm in and settle things for them. What surer way to do so than have their opponents use an 'illegal weapon', hopefully killing innocents?

Why has nobody of an officious status mentioned that this could be a false flag attack to muster international sentiments in favor of Syria, in opposition to the rebels?

Because it's become clear that the rebels in Syria (as in most of the Arab Spring) are no more trustworthy than the Assad government, and just as willing to engage in atrocities. When you can't trust either side, you basically end up just ignoring both. It's pretty much impossible to tell the truth from the bullshit in Syria.

Whether you're happy with it or not is irrelevant. It's a true answer. There's a reason they're always referred to as the "rebels in Syria" and not by some official name. There is no official name, because they're not organized. And unfortunately the best organized, most effective groups in the rebels are islamist, anti-western militants, generally foreign fighters of some sort, who are interested in the extreme side if middle eastern politics, namely impose Sharia and burn Israel to the ground. There

So you're among the millions that think all we need to do to solve this whole thing is just give them a big hug. Maybe offer them an icre cream cone or something?

At some point you and millions of others are going to need to come to terms with the fact that there are bad people out there in the world. And no amount of hugs, or laws, or regulations, or sanctions, or aid programs, or anything else changes that simple fact. And bad people dont respond to heartfelt crap that came off of a Hallmark card. Somet

It seems that, just as when Russia was fighting in Afghanistan, the US is supporting the guys who include the Islamic fundamentalists against the people who believe in a more or less secular State. Assad may be unpleasant, but like Saddam he is trying to keep the lid on Shiite/Sunni warring.

If the US arms the rebels, they will be supplying equipment to units of the Taliban who will, as sure as day, subsequently use them against the West. It is hard not to be cynical and think this is all about arms dealers staying in business.

Because it's become clear that the rebels in Syria (as in most of the Arab Spring) are no more trustworthy than the Assad government, and just as willing to engage in atrocities

Considering most of the rebels, including those engaged in the "arab spring" are far worse then those who they are replacing, I'm more likely to believe them to be willing to commit these acts. Well, people are free to believe whatever they want, but considering that the rebel groups have already in the past happily aligned themselves with known terrorist organizations or are simply offshoots of them, it wouldn't surprise me. Anyone who believed that the arab spring was going to make things better was eit

It could well be a false flag attack, but your elephant is a small one.

If the white house thinks: "the threshold for intervention is chemical weapons" (reasonable), and tell it the world openly (this is pure madness or being criminal, choose), and there are interests in doing such intervention (and lots of people have interest in wars) then chemical attacks will occur.

If you want oil less than $2 a gallon, then you're going to need a lot of cheap oil. Nabbing all the oil executives (and the heads of state of the bigger OPEC countries, since they're really the ones setting prices) just gets you a bunch of warm bodies.

Shell can already gassify natural gas into petroleum for $25/barrel in on of its Persian Gulf plants - the price of crude is only one input into the price of gasoline at the pump, and unfortunately, it hasn't been primary since the USG invaded the Middle East.

Suppose we nationalise them, and assuming that doesn't create any problems, oil price can go down by a little under 5% (and that's ignoring that most of their profits don't actually come from selling oil to the pump). This 5% profit, by the way, for 2012 is a record high for oil companies

True - you pay more coins for the same amount of oil, today. But the problem isn't that the oil is more expensive. The problem is that the dollar is worth less. Almost worthless, in fact.

There will be a squad of self-appointed economics experts along soon, to remind us why the gold standard sucks. Of course, economics experts allowed the housing bubble and the subsequent crash, so take their explanations with a fe

Of course, economics experts will very quickly be able to show you why a gold bubble and subsequent crash would suck as well, and if you've now based your entire currency on the crashing commodity it's going to hurt. A lot. A whole lot more than the housing crash or the dot-bomb crash did. Really, really bad idea. Unfortunately most of the competing ideas are only slightly better.

You are, of course, correct. The gold bubble will suck for anyone who bought into it.

But "investing in gold" and "gold standard" have little to do with each other.

Oh - one of life's smaller mysteries: In high school, before we cashed in the gold standard, we had inflation. Not very high, but it was there. The news heads would announce periodically what the inflation rate actually was - 1/2% or 3% or whatever. Since we ditched the gold standard, I haven't heard those numbers announced on the news. The

Part of the problem is that at least since the Reagan years there has been multiple ways to measure inflation. The most common indicator used by the press and Brainwashington is one that doesn't include food, energy, housing or medical costs, (supposedly too volatile to be valid) but does include electronics. Even that indicator is looking pretty bad now.

It seems to me that what you're saying is perfectly correct, yet also practically useless considering that the average American's wealth is denominated in Dollars (and the average European's wealth is denominated in Euros, etc).

You really think that it is in the best interest of these corporations to give us cheap gasoline? No, their interest is in control and it is not in their interest when a leader floods the world with cheap oil.

I say I'm beginning to support the NSA's proposal to collect every post each person makes on Internet message boards, then hand-deliver the assembled quotations, in coffee table book format, to anyone said person later wishes to marry.

See, you had me right up until I saw the infowars link. There's left and right bias in the media, and then there's the drug addled bat shit fucking crazy morons that run conspiracy web sites like infowars.

Drugs can't adequately explain the bizarre paranoid delusions inforwars garners. Drugs can induce delusions, but they're usually not of the paranoid kind. I have every reason to believe that there's a relatively(10-25%) common mental issue that the Internet has allowed to surface and self-reinforce. Things common to all of us, like confirmation bias makes a few paranoid delusions start to seem rational to particular subcultures, and they all assure each-other of how rig

Third: don't pretend you care, the death toll is reaching 100.000, Assad launched everything in his arsenal from cluster bombs to SCUDs, about 1.000.000 people were displaced. Unless something spills over the Golan heights nothing will be done except strong worded letters to all parts involved

Note: it is Russia and China [wsj.com] that have everyone afraid to intervene for the most part. What we have here is a clusterfuck of the current iteration of the Great Game causing political tensions that make most nations leery to the point that everyone refuses to take any action.

This is doubly so for America as you add in the Democrats knowing damned well that no matter how justified an intervention is they will be tarred even more by Republicans claiming it was simply warmongering (see Libya).

This is doubly so for America as you add in the Democrats knowing damned well that no matter how justified an intervention is they will be tarred even more by Republicans claiming it was simply warmongering (see Libya).Yes, that great Republican Dennis Kucinich [wikipedia.org] had constitutional objections. But that's okay we're "rushing to war" in Syrian, but since there is a Democratic president it will all turn out OK.

Well, the U.S. cared about Iraq and the echo chamber here resounded with "tut-tut, even WE know better". Personally, I think knocking over a tyrannical dictator is always a good think in the long run. In the short run, things get messy.

On a different note, the Arabs and Persians are killing each other in a civil war started in 600's when some relative of Muhammed got whacked long after the M boy scarpered to that Great Food Bowl in the Sky claiming (gee, who'd have guessed) "no prophet will arise after me".

im often glad to see what may on their face seem like 'not slashdot' material posted because people on slashdot often offer insight and info that just doesnt appear anywhere else.

i've not seen it yet on this story but this is the EXACT type of story that some slashdot user will geek out on and bust out all kinds of chemistry stuff about how a certain chemical reacts on the body and how effective they are when used in certain places.. in certain ways..

I find it convenient to just assume that both sides are lying sacks of shit.

I decided long ago there were no "good guys" in the conflict. The rest becomes a question of how to handle the situation best.

- It's clear that it's a civil war.- I'm not seeing reports of systematic extermination, which is good.- There are a huge number of refugees, and they deserve help and protection.- This seems suspiciously well-timed with France's efforts to lift the EU arms embargo.- I hope that the US is merely cautious abou

When people took to the streets, Assad had been promising change and concessions practically every week, but nothing happened and all the protestors got was bullets. And Putin, he has been busy consolidating his grip on power by surgically eliminating political opponents and even the slightest hint of dissent, while establishing a propaganda machinery in the media filled with populist-patriotic rhetoric. This is the guy who is exchanging compliments and presents with Silvio Berlusconi and who is congratulat

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that it's out of the question that the rebels used the chemical weapons, especially as they have extremist/islamist factions among their ranks. I'm just saying that anything Assad's regime or Russia have to say on the situation is worthless.

So please, when it comes to Putin, Assad and their like, don't reproach me with your "lets be intellectual about this" fair and balanced view. These guys are scumbags as everyone with eyes on their foreheads should be able to see.

Of course they're scumbags. You don't even have to mention names or specific countries and we know they're scumbags. Assad is running a middle eastern country, and Putin is operating a kleptocracy. You do not get to operate at that level in those environments without being more bru

In all likelihood, this is a maskirovka on the part of al-Assad's regime. There is clearly both a domestic and international motivation behind this: first of all, regime supporters will believe without question that it was undertaken by the rebels, which would in turn only harden even further their support-perhaps this was even an attempt to stem the flow of desertions, as supposedly within the past 2 weeksa brigadier general and several soldiers have defected to the opposition-while discrediting and demonizing the rebels. Internationally, this claim gives them percieved legitimacy for more open use of chemical weapons in a "retaliatory" response. They were probavbly also well aware that Russia would support them, and counter any claim made by the US, UK, and other pro-opposition states. Ultimately, they may be hoping to force unilateral action by the US: as long as al-Assad has Russia in his camp, he has de facto veto power in the UN Security Council. I think this is al-Assad's trump card: he is hoping the US is afraid to get embroiled in another Middle East war, and is bettig that he can keep himself from turning into another Gaddhafi.

One side is not a cynical villain eating puppies while stroking his white cat on a chair, whereas the other are the heroes rebel helped by Mr Bond. The way I see it, both side are likely to use any advantage they can , and on the rebel side using the chemical weapon has the advantage that people like you will automagically assign the blame on Assad. If rebel of that country are like rebel of any other country, a good fraction is probably made of thugs in for the possibiltiy of looting , raping, and murderi

Only 25 people. Chlorine, used for a wide variety of civilian and industry purposes, all legit and reasonable uses.

Guys trusting in allah to let their bullets find their targets are very likely to hit and puncture a lot of stuff that could leak.

That equals ho hum big deal, someone hit a tank of something, or some refrigeration unit, or whatever.

Wake me up when it's several hundred people and there's evidence it was a military deployment of some kind not just hearsay from two sides who are both obviously lying through their teeth about everything and anything.

Many western countries are already supplying the Syrian rebels with arms - the recent video showing rebels shooting down a Syrian forces helicopter showed them using a type of MANPAD which was not in the Syrian military's arsenal prior to the conflict, someone gave or sold it to the rebels.

Why does it have to be Western countries? The people with the most to gain from Assad falling are Turkey and Saudia Arabia, who both have substantial amounts of money and weapons. It's not always the usual demon "the West" that gets involved in these things, there are other actors in the world.

The West has been on the receiving end the problems of supplying weapons in the past; many of the weapons the Taliban used in Afghanistan were supplied in the 80's by the West to combat the Russians; suddenly they w

To be honest, Russia doesn't care about which asshole is in charge in Syria, so long as he's a-ok with the Russian naval base in Tartus. Of course, the mujis would never allow that (what with ongoing jihad against Russia for the establishment of "Caucasus Emirate"), so Assad it is.

Nerds like chemistry.
In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.

Nerds like chemistry.In any case, seems like the end game is near. Whoever used the chemical weapons, the regime will be blamed and swiftly removed. What will follow is the usual chaos, fighting between factions, terrorist attacks, etc. Why do we still think that democracy is better for these countries when dictatorships obviously work better. Or maybe we just want to bring democracy whenever some regime doesn't like us. Places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are great.

Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

I would agree, but then we need to stop making statements about a red line in the sand. Don't tell the world you're going to be the police and busy yourself up eating doughnuts when someone commits a crime. We shouldn't be the world police, and we should stop pretending that we are when we're not willing to follow through. All it does is build false hope and animosity.

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

I think a good place to start is the problems that exist within our own borders. Once we got those figured out, King O and start working on policing the world.

Unless you want to deploy the US military on US soil to do...something, then it is also worth noting that we can solve more then one problem at a time, and have different types of resources for different tasks.

The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military and can intervene to stop the blunt massacre of civilians and rise of a new dictatorship in Syria. If the US defunded most of it's military and put that money into say, trying to address domestic poverty, then that would be laudable too.

We might also recognize that most problems are inter-related and can't be fixed one at a time anyway, and it takes a collective effort on many fronts to make progress on any of them.

Perhaps we should spend, oh, five times as much as the next ten countries and work on our 17 trillion dollars in debt. I mean, my flag flies proud on my porch and I'm happy to be an American. But what the fuck man.

The US can easily afford to keep borrowing every single year provided the rate of borrowing over time does not exceed the rate of increase in the GDP. Provided that remains true, the US government will always be able to afford the interest payments on debt and refinancing (that's not to say holding massive debts is not problematic, but it's a problem with volatility to market fluctuations) since tax receipts will increase to offset interest payments.

Maintaining a debt-state indefinietly is still a net drag on the economy. This is no different than a 20-something borrowing to maintain an extravagant lifestyle now based on their belief they'll get a promotion/raise before the debt comes due.

Actually it's very different, because a nation-state is functionally immortal and it's internal spending is more analogous to student loans.

Debt is not a net drag on the economy if the spending is invested in things which grow the GDP more then the debt.

Whereas cutting the debt can be a net drag on the economy if you cause GDP to contract in the process - which, it's worth nothing, is exactly what the sequestration is presently accomplishing via the cuts to various services such as customs inspections or in

Well, if it's the US military we have some pretty clear recent history to lay out a likely roadmap. The US will back the worst possible choice of factions, which will then proceed to slaughter its rivals with impunity. US soldiers will commit multiple atrocities, and only low level underlings who expose them will be punished. Torture will become more widespread and more blatant than ever before. Multinational corporations with ties to the Pentagram will clean up in a massive way, while eliminating local

Don't send in the troops. Enforce a no-fly zone and take away the government's big force multiplier against the rebels.Maybe punitive drone strikes against artillery and rockets which are sighted shelling civilian areas?Or just go in with drones with the express mission of removing chemical weapon stockpiles.

There are lots of options which aren't "Iraq 2.0" and Libya should demonstrate that the US military is easily capable of broad-restraint when the neo-cons aren't running the show.

The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military

Boy, argument is easy when you can just make up your own facts as needed. This is, of course, not even remotely true. Yes, the US outspends everybody else on military matters by a good margin (41% of the world's military spending in 2012 was US). But not by this amount. In fact, the next ten countries together spend almost as much as the US.

The US is currently spending 10x the next ten countries on it's military

Boy, argument is easy when you can just make up your own facts as needed. This is, of course, not even remotely true. Yes, the US outspends everybody else on military matters by a good margin (41% of the world's military spending in 2012 was US). But not by this amount. In fact, the next ten countries together spend almost as much as the US.

My mistake, you're right - it's more (by a few 10s of billions) then the next 10 countries put together.

And ~4-5x the amount China (as the next largest) spends.

As was my point though, which was that if you're going to spend that much then to be effective with it you commit yourself to some level of military hegemony because you need to exercise and test that aresenal under real-world conditions. US bases all over the world, for example, exist so the US can deploy commanders and troops in real combat conditi

Why do you think that people in other parts of the world don't desire freedom as Americans do?

Just because we can't fix all the problems at once, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and help with the ones we can.

Piss the world off when the US inserts itself in these sort of conflicts, piss the world off when the US doesn't get involved. Either way it is the fault of the big, bad, USofA. I am not going to be an apologist for the many dumb things the US has done in the world over the years, but the US does not have a corner on that particular market. Not all the bad things that happen in the world are our fault.

Hell, Putin seems hell-bent on restarting the cold war to rebuild the glory of the Soviet Union, I see n

hence the chaos that has ensued. the chaos was born from syrians - because the system was not working.

they're not great(saudi arabia and bahrain). they're waiting timebombs and quite frankly hellholes for having fun or saying your mind out loud. you want to bitch about one percenters, there it's on a whole different level.

Assad will probably label anyone who used the chems as rebels, he has to or say bye bye faster than otherwise. doesn't mean that they weren't fighting other rebe

Because Democracy is better than tyranny. Learn to think long ball instead of small ball.

I agree with that but why don't we hold everyone to the same standard then? Why don't we tell Saudis: hey, either you become a democracy or else?
Then we have a shiny example of how we removed a dictator Sadam, to make Iraq a better place. Is it really a better place? How much money US has spent on that war, and who benefited?

Democracy is only better so long as it is self-sustaining. If it's not, you basically get a short period of democracy during which people vote a new dictator into power and transfer all authority to him. If that new dictator is worse than the old one, the end result is just bad, period.

Of course, that presupposes that the rebels are even fighting for democracy. Some rebel groups are, like FSA. Some are not, like Al-Nusra Front. The problem is that those that aren't, are better at fighting. Once Assad is out

We should finish celebrating the success of the last war to bring freedom, prosperity and democracy to Iraq first, I feel. It was a textbook example of government, intelligence services, armed forces and the media all working together towards a common goal - all funded by taxpayers who go squealing about 'civilian casualties' as soon as one of THEM gets injured.

The US military is really good at blowing things up - nobody does it better. As long as that's how you use them things go just fine. The problem is that when your tool is blowing things up and your goal is to establish a government with liberty and justice for all, things don't always work out well.

The locals need to want true democracy before you can try to establish it. If this were about being the French and blockading the British so that the US revolutionaries could f

It will take people's minds off of the black hole in America's treasury and the market which surprise, seems to have topped out and will probably work its way back again like it has been doing for the past almost 20 years [yahoo.com] or so, trading in more or less the same range. Funny, everyone on the street seems to be getting excited about the stock market again. I have a look at the calendar and think oh look, already 5 years since 2008... I give it a year or so. War would change this, send the price of oil up even